On May 13, 2010, the U.S. EPA announced the release of final rules for permitting sources of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V air permitting programs (see the April 2010 issue of the EQ newsletter for additional background). The rules require that between January 2, 2011 and June 30, 2011, only sources that are currently subject to PSD and Title V permitting would be subject to permitting for GHGs (i.e., no sources would be subject to the Clean Air Act permitting due solely to GHG emissions). During this time, only GHG increases of 75,000 tons per year (tpy) or more would be subject to a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis of GHGs under the PSD program. As noted in the April e-newsletter, there is no “grandfathering” of PSD applications in process as of January 2, 2011 (i.e., a BACT analysis would be required for GHG emission increases greater than 75,000 tpy for any PSD permit issued after that date).
After July 1, 2011, new sources emitting more than 100,000 tpy of GHGs and modifications increasing GHG emissions more than 75,000 tpy would be subject to PSD review, regardless of whether PSD was triggered for other pollutants. Facilities that emit at least 100,000 tpy would be subject to Title V permitting requirements. EPA estimates that 550 additional sources will need to obtain Title V permits due to their GHG emissions. EPA plans additional rulemaking that would govern permitting after June 2013.
The tailoring rules will be published in the Federal Register shortly.
For more information, refer to the EPA website or contact EQ’s Kent Berry or Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299 or Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495.
For additional Greenhouse Gas tailoring rules, go to the EPA website.
On April 30, 2010, the U.S. EPA announced that it is proposing revisions to the new source performance standards for solid waste incinerators to control emissions of nine pollutants, including air toxics. The proposed revisions to the new source performance standards for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators would require the facilities to install controls to reduce emissions of mercury, lead, cadmium, hydrogen chloride, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, dioxins and furans, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. In addition to those proposed standards, U.S. EPA also released a separate proposed rule to determine whether a combustion unit is required to meet emission standards for solid waste incineration units or emission standards for commercial, industrial, and institutional boilers. U.S. EPA proposed the performance standards for incinerators and revisions to the definition of solid waste rules as part of a package of rules targeting the incinerator and boiler industries. In two other separate rules, U.S. EPA proposed air toxics control requirements for boilers and process heaters. (See related article in this issue.)
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299 or Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495.
In the May 18, 2010 Federal Register, the U.S. EPA announced that it has decided to delay indefinitely the effective date of a rule limiting some circumstances when facilities are required to install updated pollution controls when they make modifications that increase emissions. The Bush-era rule would require permitting authorities to consider aggregate emissions from power plants, refineries, mines, and paper mills when modifications at those facilities are “substantially” related economically or technically. However, it also would require permitting authorities to presume modifications are unrelated if the modifications occurred three or more years apart. Under the Obama administration, EPA has repeatedly delayed the effective date of the rule and has proposed revoking it and returning to the previous policy on new source review, requiring industrial facilities to consider their emissions in aggregate after completing various projects that increase emissions. EPA announced May 14 that it is extending the comment period on that proposal until June 16 (75 Fed. Reg. 27,191; 92 DEN A-17, 5/14/10).
For more information, refer to the Federal Register notice or contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
On May 11, 2010, the U.S. EPA announced that it has promulgated final attainment designations for the Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton air quality planning area with the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm. Their final redesignation is based on 2007, 2008, and 2009 monitoring data. The areas affected by this notice include Lawrenceburg Township, Dearborn County in Indiana, and Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, and Warren Counties in Ohio. In a separate action, U.S. EPA’s proposed redesignation of the northern Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area appeared in the May 12, 2010 Federal Register (75 FR 26685). The areas affected by this notice include Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties. U.S. EPA is accepting comments through June 11, 2010 and is expected to promulgate the final redesignation by early Fall 2010.
For more information, contact EQ’s Julie Wagner or Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495.
On May 27, 2010, the USEPA Administrator signed a proposed rule that includes technical corrections, clarifying and other amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting rule (MRR), which was published on October 30, 2009 (40 CFR part 98). In general, the proposed updates would not change the overall requirements of the rule but would improve clarity and ensure consistency across the calculation, monitoring and data reporting requirements.
The proposed amendments consist of the following types of changes:
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
U.S. EPA has promulgated final attainment designation for Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana with the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm. The two counties represent the Indiana portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, Illinois-Indiana ozone nonattainment area. Metropolitan Chicago remains nonattainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Their final redesignation appeared in the May 11, 2010 Federal Register (75 FR 26113) and took effect on that date.
For more information, contact EQ’s Kent Berry at (800) 229-5299 or Jeff Slayback at (800) 229-7495.
The U.S. EPA is continuing a surge of inspections, enforcement actions, and information collection requests that was stepped up in the latter part of 2009. Consistent with projections by U.S. EPA themselves, activities concerning hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are often at the forefront of these efforts.
Large and small chemical and petrochemical manufacturers continue to be targeted for leak detection and repair (LDAR) program requirements. Risk Management Program inspections and audits under 40 CFR Part 68 continue to be scrutinized by onsite inspections at different industries, including chemical and metals manufacturers. Similarly, SARA Title III, Section 313 (TRI Form R) onsite inspections and inquiries by U.S. EPA were very active in the first part of 2010.
Another example of U.S. EPA’s heightened activities is the recent section 114 Information Collection Request made to the Ferroalloy Manufacturing Industry. This round of information collection included the typical data collection forms for raw materials, operating parameters, equipment specifications, and product data - as well as time-consuming and costly source testing for HAPs.
To help prepare for U.S. EPA inquiries, companies can:
For more information, contact George Mesing at (724) 775-2910.
On April 27, 2010, the European Commission (EC) released a study showing that penalties for breaches of the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) legislation vary widely among countries and might not be sufficient to ensure compliance. The study, prepared for the commission by the Belgian consulting firm Milieu, showed that countries differ in the type of enforcement regime, the level of sanctions, and the dissuasiveness of penalties. The differences “could lead to a risk of some companies avoiding countries with a more stringent compliance system,” the report said. This could create EU market distortions and “reduce the level of protection of human health and the environment in those countries with less severe systems of penalties,” the report added. Under EU registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals regulation (EC No. 1907/2006), EU countries were required to adopt enforcement legislation and report it to the European Commission by Dec. 1, 2008.
Differing Levels of FinesAccording to the study, “the fine is the sanction most commonly provided for in the legislation” of EU member states. Maximum fines range from less than €5,000 ($6,615) in Latvia and Lithuania to €55 million ($73 million) in Belgium, while the United Kingdom does not state a limit. Ireland and Poland also apply high fines, the report added. Countries are divided over the use of criminal or administrative penalties, with Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia largely applying administrative sanctions, while Ireland, Malta, and the United Kingdom enforce REACH under their criminal law, and other countries use a combination of administrative and criminal sanctions. Reportedly, for chemicals imported into the European Union in annual volumes of 1,000 metric tons or more, “the level of fine incurred is not high enough to match the high costs of compliance” in most countries. However, powers to enforce REACH have been “well allocated under national law” and enforcement authorities are well prepared to ensure a maximum effectiveness of the measures at their disposal.
For more information, contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
Many waste fluorescent lamps are hazardous wastes due to their mercury content. Other examples of lamps that, when spent, are commonly classified as hazardous waste include: high-intensity discharge (HID), neon, mercury vapor, high-pressure sodium, and metal halide lamps. Low-mercury lamps that pass the TCLP are not regulated as hazardous wastes but still contain mercury and may be subject to various Mercury-Added Consumer Products Laws on a State by State basis.
Generators of hazardous waste lamps may choose between handling their lamps under the traditional regulatory scheme or as universal wastes. However, once lamps are declared to be universal wastes, the owner must continue to handle them as universal wastes because jumping back and forth between the traditional RCRA approach and the universal waste rule to avoid any requirements is prohibited. A handler of hazardous waste lamps who fails to comply with the universal waste rule may be in violation of hazardous waste laws and regulations.
For more information, visit EQ’s website or contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
James Wendle has joined EQ as President and Chief Operating Office in the Cincinnati corporate head quarters. Mr. Wendle brings more than 30 years of engineering consulting and management experience to the EQ management team. Mr. Wendle’s extensive track record of successful management and corporate growth will help lead EQ on it continued expansion into new markets while improving upon our current client relationships and delivery systems.
Use non-toxic fly repellent instead of the norm.
Citronella oil and candles Citronella oil is an essential oil extracted from the different species of Cymbopogon (lemon grass). It's considered a biopesticide and non-toxic. Burning a citronella oil candle or incense sticks will not only repel flies, but mosquitos too. You can also buy special preparations of citronella oil to apply directly to your skin as a fly/mosquito repellent, but it does need to be applied more often than synthetic repellents.
Mint Crushed mint can be put in bowls or cloth bags and placed strategically around the home near common entrances to repel bugs.
Eucalyptus oil Sprinkle a little eucalyptus oil on a scrap of cloth and place it near entrances to repel pests.
Fly repellent plants for the garden Some species of plants you may be able to grow in your yard depending on your local climate conditions can help discourage flies. These include lemon balm, catnip, mint, chrysanthemums, and marigolds.
BATS The best and guaranteed way to get rid of flies is to encourage bats to roost nearby. Provide a bat box for them so they are housed a bit further away from the front door. These little bats are amazing fly solutions....they are the #1 solution to flies for us living in “fly-prone” areas.
House plant….What about good ol' Venus Fly traps.. they seem to me to be a little fun, green (literally), and get the ecosystem in sync.
To learn more about EQ’s Sustainability Program, visit EQ’s website or contact EQ’s Tom Robertson at (800) 229-5299.
For your engineering needs, please contact EQ Engineers at 219-844-3500, or email Ron Hawks
For questions about EQ's capabilities, please contact
Jerry Day or Laurie Buckman, or call (800) 229-7495.
To subscribe to the EQuation Newsletter, please send an email to subscribe-eq@eqm.com.
To remove your name from the EQuation Newsletter listing, please send an email to unsubscribe-eq@eqm.com.